Assimilation

[Leafless]

Harper to Natives: 'Policy of assimilation was wrong'. Government apologizes for residential school system

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...19-e2b3f9224682

So, assimilation is wrong for the natives, wrong for Quebec, wrong for ethnic immigrants, means there is NO DOMINANT culture.

Suggesting these sub cultures integrate is nonsense as the word integrate in Canada has NO comprehensive definition.

Then maybe someone can tell me why the majority White, English speaking, Christian society is on the hook or is responsible subsidizing all these sub cultures and or allowing them to live in our society without assimilating?

This makes no sense, whereas if you take away the majority White, English speaking, Christian culture, you have NO CANADA, NO COUNTRY, NO GOVERNMENT, No Mr, Harper.

[eyeball]

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding, how can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

What a complete brick.

[Remiel]

I am not sure that Leafless really speaks English or French, just Trollese.

[Leafless]

What a complete brick.

Eyeball, go to hell!

[Leafless]

I am not sure that Leafless really speaks English or French, just Trollese.

More disrespectful slurs from Remiel.

But what else can we expect from a socialist nerd like Remiel.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Leafless

[M.Dancer]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...19-e2b3f9224682

So, assimilation is wrong for the natives, wrong for Quebec, wrong for ethnic immigrants, means there is NO DOMINANT culture.

Suggesting these sub cultures integrate is nonsense as the word integrate in Canada has NO comprehensive definition.

It's probably because you struggle with the english language that you have erred, but neither quebec, nor "ethnic immigrants" or natives fit the proper definition of what a sub culture is:

here, read this then have it explained to you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture

Edited June 13, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Army Guy]

I don't think they are being assimilated, We are, Canadians go out of thier way to conform or adjust our current culture to adapt to thiers.

Which is why i think we have such a problem identifing "what is a Canadian" or who we are...

[August1991]

I am not sure that Leafless really speaks English or French, just Trollese.

Leafless is no troll. He/she has been posting here for ages and isn't doing it for the fun of provoking kneejerk reactions.

Leafless genuinely believes that the French are at the root of all the problems, from Black Holes to lost socks, in the Universe.

I don't think they are being assimilated, We are, Canadians go out of thier way to conform or adjust our current culture to adapt to thiers.

Which is why i think we have such a problem identifing "what is a Canadian" or who we are...

Adapt to theirs? You meant they're dominant? I never thought that you AG, of all people, would go namby-pamby Leftist on us. In Left-world, the dominant culture/people/class oppresses ordinary/honest individuals/minorities.

I kinda object to this whole "dominant" idea. I mean, you're just an Army guy, right?

Edited June 13, 2008 by August1991

[Leafless]

It's probably because you struggle with the english language that you have erred, but neither quebec, nor "ethnic immigrants" or natives fit the proper definition of what a sub culture is:

here, read this then have it explained to you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subculture

It appears you cannot read English nor understand English and are grasping at straws to somehow define subcultures as being different from, er, subcultures.

Quoted from your own link:

In sociology, anthropology and cultural studies, a subculture is a group of people with a culture (whether distinct or hidden) which differentiates them from the larger culture to which they belong.

[Leafless]

Leafless genuinely believes that the French are at the root of all the problems, from Black Holes to lost socks, in the Universe.

LOL, not quite but almost, relating to the destruction of Canada's primary culture and its self interest that established this country.

I mean, are you in denial that the many years of Quebec rule had no negative effect on Canada?

[M.Dancer]

It appears you cannot read English nor understand English and are grasping at straws to somehow define subcultures as being different from, er, subcultures.

Quoted from your own link:

No need to take it out of context, everyone already knows your limitations.

[charter.rights]

It appears you cannot read English nor understand English and are grasping at straws to somehow define subcultures as being different from, er, subcultures.

Quoted from your own link:

Native culture is not a subculture of the non-existent Canadian culture. It stands alone and apart.

[Leafless]

No need to take it out of context, everyone already knows your limitations.

So, Dancer refuses to be dominated.

You are whether you like it or not.

Just wait till the money runs out, that is if you can grasp that statement.

[Leafless]

Native culture is not a subculture of the non-existent Canadian culture. It stands alone and apart.

Your statement is ludicrous.

You can thank the British and the FORCED generosity of the majority White, English speaking, Christian Canadian for your survival or your culture would have died out or would have been annihilated years ago by some other force with no compassion for natives.

You can thank us beginning NOW and forever more!

Canadians in fact really owe you NOTHING.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Leafless

[M.Dancer]

Native culture is not a subculture of the non-existent Canadian culture. It stands alone and apart.

Close, no cigar. Native culture is not a subculture of Canadian culture but without subsidies and support from Canada, without Canadian cutlure to borrow from , native culture would be no more than a circle of empty broken beer bottles, a rusted out pick up on the front lawn and a pack of snot nosed kids looking for gasoline to huff...

[charter.rights]

Your statement is ludicrous.

You can thank the British and the FORCED generosity of the majority White, English speaking, Christian Canadian for your survival or your culture would have died out or would have been annihilated years ago by some other force with no compassion for natives.

You can thank us beginning NOW and forever more!

Canadians in fact really owe you NOTHING.

Ha ha ha. What a morass opinion. Are you sure you understand the English language?

Iroquois law, culture and government survived in spite of residential schools, in spite of laws forbidding natives to practice it and in spite of the attempts to assimilate them. Many still speak their languages and their ceremonies exist WITHOUT money from the government. In fact you and I would not be here if not for the generosity of the Iroquois who agreed to peace treaties with our ancestors, rather than taking them on in a head to head war. The British knew when they came here that they could not eradicate the Iroquois. Their territory extended from where New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio stands today to as high as the Ottawa River, all of southern Ontario and all if Michigan when our ancestors first began to settle here. The Royal Proclamation 1763 recognized the Iroquois (among others) had dominion over this land and the people that inhabited it.

Low and behold, the Iroquois are still giving the colonialists grief and will continue until we live up to the agreements our ancestors the British, and our government made with them. By law we are required to ask for their permission to occupy and use their land....which is all of Ontario.

[charter.rights]

Close, no cigar. Native culture is not a subculture of Canadian culture but without subsidies and support from Canada, without Canadian cutlure to borrow from , native culture would be no more than a circle of empty broken beer bottles, a rusted out pick up on the front lawn and a pack of snot nosed kids looking for gasoline to huff...

Nah. What you are referring to is Oshawa culture....also known as the 'shwa.

Edited June 14, 2008 by charter.rights

[DogOnPorch]

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...19-e2b3f9224682

So, assimilation is wrong for the natives, wrong for Quebec, wrong for ethnic immigrants, means there is NO DOMINANT culture.

Suggesting these sub cultures integrate is nonsense as the word integrate in Canada has NO comprehensive definition.

Then maybe someone can tell me why the majority White, English speaking, Christian society is on the hook or is responsible subsidizing all these sub cultures and or allowing them to live in our society without assimilating?

This makes no sense, whereas if you take away the majority White, English speaking, Christian culture, you have NO CANADA, NO COUNTRY, NO GOVERNMENT, No Mr, Harper.

You know...I think I actually agree with much of your thoughts on this one...lol. I think that assimilation is more important in smaller towns and cities. It's really quite a shock in a town of 10,000 say, to all of a sudden become the home for thousands of folks from every country on the globe with little interest in actually fitting into the local culture. I think people living in the major centres are less affected by this culture shock are are quicker to pass it off as unimportant.

As well, in smaller communities, there may or may not be a lot of work...so unemployed immigrants on welfare are very visible...it can make the average Joe Canucklehead going to work every morning go WTF?? Why am I working? Everyone else is just hanging around drinking brews!

But, hey...it's all about eating at new, exotic restaurants...right?

----------------------------------------

Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.

---Mahatma Gandhi

[DogOnPorch]

...and a pack of snot nosed kids looking for gasoline to huff...

That was a huge problem in one of the northern communities my wife lived in. Rankin Inlet. Drops of gasoline actually condense in your brain...kidneys...liver...etc. The method prefered was to soak a matress in gasoline and then lay on it.

-----------------------------------------------

Looks like I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue.

---Lloyd Bridges: Airplane

[Remiel]

But what else can we expect from a socialist nerd like Remiel.

I never would have expected such a nice compliment from you, Leafless. Thank you.

[Leafless]

Ha ha ha. What a morass opinion. Are you sure you understand the English language?

Whatever that strange statement is suppose to mean.

Iroquois law, culture and government survived in spite of residential schools, in spite of laws forbidding natives to practice it and in spite of the attempts to assimilate them. Many still speak their languages and their ceremonies exist WITHOUT money from the government.

Excellent, and I am glad you enjoy living as a third world people and don't need the White man's money. You should not need any kind of apology, since you are getting along so well and that it has nothing to do with Canadians to-day, nor the government of the day.

Low and behold, the Iroquois are still giving the colonialists grief and will continue until we live up to the agreements our ancestors the British, and our government made with them. By law we are required to ask for their permission to occupy and use their land....which is all of Ontario.

We will clarify who the Iroquois are:

The Iroquois Confederacy (also known as the "League of Peace and Power", the "Five Nations"; the "Six Nations"; or the "People of the Longhouse") is a group of First Nations/Native Americans that originally consisted of five nations: the Mohawk, the Oneida, the Onondaga, the Cayuga, and the Seneca. A sixth tribe, the Tuscarora, joined after the original five nations were formed. Although frequently referred to as the Iroquois, the Nations refer to themselves collectively as Haudenosaunee (Akunęhsyę̀niˀ[1] in Tuscarora).

You said:

By law we are required to ask for their permission to occupy and use their land....which is all of Ontario.

"There's no legal basis to the Six Nations land claim; all they had was an occupancy permit"

The Six Nations were also not the occupants of the Caledonia lands at the time that the British declared sovereignty over southern Ontario. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada (such as the Delgamuukw case) suggest that occupancy at such time can give rise to a claim of aboriginal title, providing it is exclusive occupancy that endures continuously until an aboriginal land claim is asserted.

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/No_LegalClaim.htm

All of Ontario, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

[charter.rights]

Whatever that strange statement is suppose to mean.

Excellent, and I am glad you enjoy living as a third world people and don't need the White man's money. You should not need any kind of apology, since you are getting along so well and that it has nothing to do with Canadians to-day, nor the government of the day.

We will clarify who the Iroquois are:

You said:

"There's no legal basis to the Six Nations land claim; all they had was an occupancy permit"

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/No_LegalClaim.htm

All of Ontario, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

First of all money derived from the resources on First Nations' land is not "white" money. It belongs to everyone - the owner of the resources, the owner of the lands and the processors of the resource.

And yes it is all of Ontario:

A Map of the British and French Dominions in North America with the Roads, Distances, Limits and Extent of the Settlements.

You'll have to disable your pop-up blocker to see this map, known as the John Mitchell Map 1757 (published just six years before the Royal Proclamation 1763). Zoom your way in to the area around the Ottawa River and then follow the dashed line around the map. This shows the extent of the Six Nations Confederacy territory. It also identifies that the Mississauga became the 8th member of the league among other historical information. To date there has not been a treaty or a land cede for this land with the Confederacy. Thus according to law - the Royal Proclamation 1763 - all of Ontario is still Confederacy land.

As well if you look around Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, you will see it identified as the "Northern Iroquois". These people were part of the Six Nations Confederacy who occupied this land as far back (archaeological evidence) as the 1200's. The Six Nations Confederacy were not newcomers to this land. They were continuous occupiers.

Edited June 15, 2008 by charter.rights

[Leafless]

First of all money derived from the resources on First Nations' land is not "white" money. It belongs to everyone - the owner of the resources, the owner of the lands and the processors of the resource.

Stop playing word games that serves no other purpose than to confuse the true issue, that it is, it is White man's money that feeds native aspirations.

Your screen name 'charter.rights' indicates what your political leanings are towards undemocratic state legislated social engineering.

And yes it is all of Ontario:

A Map of the British and French Dominions in North America with the Roads, Distances, Limits and Extent of the Settlements.

You'll have to disable your pop-up blocker to see this map, known as the John Mitchell Map 1757 (published just six years before the Royal Proclamation 1763). Zoom your way in to the area around the Ottawa River and then follow the dashed line around the map. This shows the extent of the Six Nations Confederacy territory. It also identifies that the Mississauga became the 8th member of the league among other historical information. To date there has not been a treaty or a land cede for this land with the Confederacy. Thus according to law - the Royal Proclamation 1763 - all of Ontario is still Confederacy land.

As well if you look around Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, you will see it identified as the "Northern Iroquois". These people were part of the Six Nations Confederacy who occupied this land as far back (archaeological evidence) as the 1200's. The Six Nations Confederacy were not newcomers to this land. They were continuous occupiers.

Six Nations were not continual occupiers of 'all of Ontario'.

You have no justifiable claim:

The reality is that the Confederacy perpetrated many wars against other Indian tribes.

The proclamation recognized the rights of natives to continue to occupy lands in Ontario, but they had very limited land rights. Natives were not sovereign over their lands; they did not own their lands; they could not sell their lands; and they could surrender the lands only to the federal Crown. The proclamation still endures today, as it was entrenched in Canada's Constitution Act,1982.

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/No_LegalClaim.htm

The whole problem with this issue is the undemocratic implementation of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' that includes nonsensical Aboriginal rights, that should never have been included.

The Charter should be scrapped or rewritten to address the ideologies of the majority and not to cater to non-productive ideolgies of troublesome cultural groups, who try to capitalize on the success of the majority.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Leafless

[CANADIEN]

Ha ha ha. What a morass opinion. Are you sure you understand the English language?

Iroquois law, culture and government survived in spite of residential schools, in spite of laws forbidding natives to practice it and in spite of the attempts to assimilate them. Many still speak their languages and their ceremonies exist WITHOUT money from the government. In fact you and I would not be here if not for the generosity of the Iroquois who agreed to peace treaties with our ancestors, rather than taking them on in a head to head war. The British knew when they came here that they could not eradicate the Iroquois. Their territory extended from where New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio stands today to as high as the Ottawa River, all of southern Ontario and all if Michigan when our ancestors first began to settle here. The Royal Proclamation 1763 recognized the Iroquois (among others) had dominion over this land and the people that inhabited it.

Low and behold, the Iroquois are still giving the colonialists grief and will continue until we live up to the agreements our ancestors the British, and our government made with them. By law we are required to ask for their permission to occupy and use their land....which is all of Ontario.

I will admit it is entertaining to see people make foul of themselves by claiming that well-known efforts at wiping entire cultures were in fact generous actions that helped preserve those cultures.

That being said, having seen the Mitchell map and read around its background, I disagree with your interpretation of it. It should be noted the first edition of the map dates 1755, the date of the official declaration of war between Great Britain and France, and one year after the failure of the latest attempt at resolving issues arising of conflicting interpretations of the borders set by the Treaty of Utrecht. The Mitchell map was produced in this context, and should be considered first and foremost as British propagenda.

The map shows the limit of Iroquois territory as expending to most of the American mid-west and southern Ontario (not ALL of Ontario) for two reasons. First, the Iroquois Confederacy had destroyed most of the other First Nations in that area through the 17th century. Second. the treaty of Utrecht had stipulated that the Iroquois were now British subjects (a clause that the Iroquois themselves disputed); therefore Mitchell was essentially laying a claim of British sovereignty over the whole area by piggybacking on Iroquois conquests.

Furthermore, I would seriously question any claim that the Iroquois were occupying southern Ontario by the time of Mitchell's map, despite him referencing Northern Iroquois north of the Great Lakes. Beginning with the late 17th-early 18th century, Mississaugas and other Ojibwe nations gradually moved south, and by the time of Mitchell's map they, not the Iroquois Confederacy, had villages horth of the Great Lakes.

If we add to that the Mississaugas were never part of the Iroquois Confederacy (I have never heard that one until today) and that the British Crown later bought land north of the great Lakes from the Mississaugas, not the Iroquois, I doubt very much that any Iroquois claim to the whole or significant part of southern ontario would stand in an independant court (5the issue of the Haldimand tract aside).

Edited June 15, 2008 by CANADIEN

[charter.rights]

Stop playing word games that serves no other purpose than to confuse the true issue, that it is, it is White man's money that feeds native aspirations.

Your screen name 'charter.rights' indicates what your political leanings are towards undemocratic state legislated social engineering.

Six Nations were not continual occupiers of 'all of Ontario'.

You have no justifiable claim:

http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/No_LegalClaim.htm

The whole problem with this issue is the undemocratic implementation of the 'Charter of Rights and Freedoms' that includes nonsensical Aboriginal rights, that should never have been included.

The Charter should be scrapped or rewritten to address the ideologies of the majority and not to cater to non-productive ideolgies of troublesome cultural groups, who try to capitalize on the success of the majority.

I see...You prefer the "la la la la...I can't hear you....la la la" to historical fact?

Just prior to the Royal Proclamation 1763 (which by the way is current law) the British mapped out what where "Indian Lands" were in order to be included in the Proclamation. Of course you didn't look at the map because it refutes your slimy opinions. Southern Ontario was Six Nations Territory in 1757 and the northern portion was held at least 100 years before the map was published. Citing an article from the racist site - CitizensofCalendonia only indicates that you might be in alliance with those racists.....Are you? Do you shave your head and wear a hoodie?

Of course the RC 1763 REQUIRES us to negotiate and obtain a surrender directly from the Nation whose territory we sought to the Crown and no one else. Perhaps you can demonstrate where that surrender of Ontario ever took place, since the legal historical fact shows that S.Ontario belongs to Six Nations. I'd be interested in you showing where Six Nations surrender that land? The truth is that your opinion is empty of facts, now isn't it, and only your racist little heart perpetuates that ignorance in your Jurassic brain.

The money from resources extracted form Six Nations partially belong to Six Nations. Money derived from other resources also belong to the nation whose territory they were extracted from. That is a another historical legal fact confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Charter IS the law. You don't have to like it. But you do have to abide by it. And since Ontario belongs to Six Nations, we cannot legally put a shovel in the ground until we have asked for their permission. Get over it. You are wrong again, bucko. And (just for good measure) you should know...that it will never be reduced to loess than it is today, but it will very likely be strengthened as Canadians recognized that more rights need to be protected form the tyranny of the majority.

Edited June 15, 2008 by charter.rights